September 26, 2007

A recent report shows that the largest companies are paying increasingly more attention to their energy use and carbon emissions.

The world's biggest companies are making climate change a higher
priority, in part through more widespread disclosure of carbon
emissions, according to an annual report released Monday by a nonprofit
group.

The report from Carbon Disclosure Project tracked how companies plan
to deal with the risks and opportunities associated with greenhouse gas
emissions and energy use.

"The big thing this year is the huge increase in the level of
seriousness with which climate change is being incorporated into the
corporate strategy of companies," said Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP)
Chief Executive Paul Dickinson.

Not so surprisingly, the more they're addressing the issue, the more they seem to be willing to talk about it...

Among the 500 companies ranked by the Financial Times newspaper as
the world's largest by market capitalization, 75 percent responded to
this year's survey, up from 47 percent when the survey started four
years ago.

The response rate by companies in North America rose in all industry
sectors, and nine of 10 sectors had a response rate of more than 50
percent. The increased willingness by companies to disclose their
carbon emissions and find ways to reduce them reflects the changing
political and regulatory landscape over energy efficiency.

Of the companies that responded, 76 percent implemented programs to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, compared with 48 percent last year.

The biggest reason? The burning of high-carbon coal to produce cheap electricity.

•
Wyoming’s coal-fired power plants produce more carbon dioxide in just
eight hours than the power generators of more populous Vermont do in a year.

•
Texas, the leader in emitting this greenhouse gas, cranks out more than the next
two biggest producers combined, California and Pennsylvania, which together have
twice Texas’ population.

• In sparsely populated Alaska, the carbon dioxide produced per person
by all the flying and driving is six times the per capita amount generated by
travelers
in New York state.

The article points out that, for example, Wyoming "exports" a large amount of the electricity it generates through coal, so some of Wyoming's poor performance on emissions can be attributed to energy consumption in other states. Still...

On a per-person basis, Wyoming spews more carbon dioxide than any other state
or any other country: 276,000 pounds of it per capita a year, thanks to burning
coal, which provides nearly all of the state’s electrical power.

Yet, just next door to the west, Idaho emits the least carbon dioxide per
person, less than 23,000 pounds a year. Idaho forbids coal power plants.
It relies
mostly on non-polluting hydroelectric power from its rivers.

Texas, where coal barely edges out cleaner natural gas as the top power source,
belches almost 1-1/2 trillion pounds of carbon dioxide yearly. That’s
more than every nation in the world except six: The United States, China,
Russia, Japan, India and Germany.

Of course, Texas is a very populous state. North Dakota isn’t, but its
power plants crank out 68 percent more carbon dioxide than New Jersey, which
has 13 times North Dakota’s residents.

And while Californians have cut their per-person carbon dioxide emissions
by 11 percent from 1990 to 2003, Nebraskans have increased their per capita
emissions
by 16 percent over the same time frame.

March 13, 2007

While we're on the topic of videos about global warming, here's an interesting 40 minute program from CBC called The Denial Machine taking a look at where the voice of dissent is coming from. From the program's web site...

The Denial Machine investigates the roots of the campaign to negate the science and the threat of global warming. It tracks the activities of a group of scientists, some of whom previously consulted for for Big Tobacco, and who are now receiving donations from major coal and oil companies.

March 12, 2007

I'm far from a global warming expert. I know more than the average Joe, but it's still just a surface level understanding.

So when I watched The Great Global Warming Swindle, it all sounded pretty convincing. I don't have the deep foundation to be able to recognize the gaps. Rather than change my outlook though, I figured I would wait to see what the rebuttals had to say. Here are a few, starting with those that address the documentary's content.

And then there are those questioning the cast of characters behind the whole thing. There's Channel 4, for example, which has a reputation for generating viewers by stirring up controversy. And documentary maker Martin Durkin has come under fire on numerous occasions for sensationalism and taking liberties with the truth.

Channel 4 was forced to issue a prime time apology for another of his documentaries attacking environmentalists in 1997 after it was found that "the programme makers 'distorted by selective editing' the views of the interviewees and 'misled' them about the 'content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part.'"

It's no surprise that a response to the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle has begun already. What is maybe a little surprising is that one of the people criticizing the documentary is one of the scientists appearing in it. Via Bumbling Bee comes an article in The Observer that says:

A Leading US climate scientist is considering legal action after he
says he was duped into appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that
claimed man-made global warming is a myth. Carl Wunsch, professor of
physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was 'grossly
distorted' and 'as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War
Two'.

He says his comments in the film were taken out of context and
that he would not have agreed to take part if he had known it would
argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat. 'I thought
they were trying to educate the public about the complexities of
climate change,' he said. 'This seems like a deliberate attempt to
exploit someone who is on the other side of the issue.'

March 06, 2007

If you spend any time at all talking with people about global warming, you've probably run into a malady known as terrathermaskeptosis, or more commonly, global warming skepticism.

If you have and you ever found yourself standing on shaky ground because you didn't know precisely how to counter the skeptic's argument, you're in luck. Grist put together a handy list of common global warming skeptic objections, together with information to counter those objections.

More than 100 corporate heads, international organizations and experts set out a
plan on Tuesday to cut greenhouse gas emissions, calling on governments to act
urgently against global warming.

"Failing to act now would lead to far higher economic and environmental costs
and greater risk of irreversible impacts," the Global Roundtable on Climate
Change warned in a statement, announcing their first major agreement since they
began talks in 2004.

The group, which includes executives from a range of industries including air
transport, energy, and technology, called on governments to set targets for
greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

The agreement urged governments to place a price on the carbon emissions
released by power plants, factories and other sectors to discourage
emissions.

"Of course, addressing climate change involves risks and costs. But much
greater is the risk of failing to act," said Alain Belda, chairman and CEO of
the world's top aluminum producer Alcoa, who signed the pact.

The group includes General Electric, Ford Motor Co., Toyota Motor North
America, investment bank Goldman Sachs, and Wal-Mart among its major
corporations.

British billionaire entrepreneur Richard Branson, with former Vice
President Al Gore at his side, offered a $25 million prize Friday for
anyone who can come up with a way to blunt global climate change by
removing at least 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year from Earth's
atmosphere.

...Branson, saying the "survival of our species" is imperiled by
current environmental trends, said the prize was similar to cash
inducements that led to some of history's most notable achievements in
navigation, exploration and industry.

The winner must devise a plan to remove greenhouse gases from the
atmosphere without creating adverse effects. The first $5 million would
be paid up front; the remainder would be paid only after the program
had worked successfully for 10 years.